Philanthropy

For some, this week's topic may seem a little off the regular theme of Business Ethics, but I think when you look at it closely, you will discover that it has everything to do with both business and personal ethics.  In fact, it epitomizes what ethics is really all about.  I'm talking about philanthropy.  Etymologically, the word is derived from two Greek words, phileo and anthropos.  Phileo is one of three Greek words for love.  It speaks of the kind of love expressed between people, hence brotherly love.  The other Greek word in philanthropy is anthropos, which means human, so together philanthropy means "the love we have toward our fellow man."  Webster's Dictionary defines it as "goodwill shown to fellow members of the human race".
  
Philanthropy was originally described by the Greek culture as the essential nature and purpose of humans, its culture and civilization.  Later, when Rome conquered the world, the Latin word used by the Romans was humanitas, that we translate into humanity.  In modern times, philanthropy is most often associated today with foundations whose purposes are to promote private initiatives for the public good.  Rarely, outside of the context of its modern usage associated with foundations, trusts and grant-making organizations associated with names like the Rockefellers, Bill & Gloria Gates, Warren Buffet, etc. do you see the word philanthropy used.  Today, the words charity and benevolence are used instead.   Charity is defined as "benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity; a generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering."  Sounds like the definition of philanthropy, doesn't it?  Technically, whether you use the word philanthropy, charity or benevolence, they mean the same thing, "the love we have and express toward our fellow man."

What does this have to do with Business Ethics?  Ethics is defined as "the principles of conduct or a set of moral principles governing an individual or group."  You see, philanthropy/charity, should be part of the set of our moral principles too.

Let's consider some verses from Proverbs.

Proverbs 11:24-26, "There is one who scatters, yet increases more; and there is one who withholds more than is right, but it leads to poverty.  The generous soul will be made rich, and he who waters will also be watered himself."

Proverbs 14:21, "He who despises his neighbor sins, but he who has mercy on the poor, happy is he."

Proverbs 14:31, "He who oppresses the poor reproaches his Maker, but he who honors Him has mercy on the needy."

Proverbs 17:5a, "He who mocks the poor reproaches his Maker;"

Proverbs 21:13, "Whoever shuts his ears to the cry of the poor will also cry himself and not be heard."

Proverbs 22:9, "He who has a generous eye will be blessed, for he gives of his bread to the poor."

As you can see, the Book of Proverbs has a lot to say about this topic of charitable giving.  To ignore these verses, and many more like them throughout the Bible, would be a mistake.  What exactly is our obligation and responsibility to those less fortunate than us?  What is the correct ethical position concerning philanthropy?  I am fully aware that I am addressing an extremely delicate subject.  Many of you might not agree with my assessment, but I cannot ignore it, since the Bible is so clear on the subject.
 
To state it simply, what is our obligation to the poor?

Some of you may say, nothing.  They, the poor, are in that condition because of their own wrong choices; why should we help them.  Others may say, I donate money to my church; I leave it up to them to give to those in need.  Others may think that it is the role of the government to take care of the needy.
 
Let's take the first hypothetical response to our obligation to the poor, which is doing nothing.  How can anyone truly feel that way?  I'm tired of people who like to quote the words of Jesus, take out of context of course, where He said, "the poor you will have with you always," and use that as a justification of not helping those in need.  Look again at any of the verses quoted above.  Is it possible to truly have that position?

The next possible response of some to our obligation to the poor is to say, I donate money to my church, that is enough.  If so, how do you handle these verses?

James 2:15-16, "If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, depart in peace, be warmed and filled, but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?"

Is just giving money to a religion, a church, a ministry, enough?  Here is another statement I've heard more times than I would care to say, I've read it in books and newspapers and know personally that some people really believe.  It's this view, "it's not the role of government to support the poor; that belongs to the church."  That sounds so pious, so pure.  Do you really believe that?  I decided to crunch a few numbers for those that feel this way.
 
Consider these numbers:

• According to "Giving USA's 2011 Executive Summary", the total amount of Charitable Giving in 2010 was $291 Billion.  Of that total, $101 Billion was donated through religious institutions.  A respectable 35% of all the charitable donations came from religious contributions.
• According to the federal budget for Fiscal Year 2012, the combined amount of public assistance programs including federal, state and local is $679.2 Billion that helps support many of the nation's population of 314.1 million people.

Do the math.  If charitable giving only amounts to $291 Billion including what churches collected, that does not even cover half of the money needed to support the poor in this country.  Plus, when you consider that the $291 Billion is usually already accounted for, so in reality, how much would be available for public assistance of that amount?  I'm convinced; it would be little or none.  As noble as saying, "it's the churches responsibility to support the poor", it does not add up based on current giving levels.

Finally, there are some that feel that government is the answer for the nation's poor.  Do you really think a body of politicians that make up our elected officials, that are primarily concerned with getting themselves re-elected, are capable of properly supporting the needs of the poor?  Adding more layers of bureaucracy is not the solution.  It has only helped compound our nations' problems.  Thirty years ago, the total federal, state and local amount spent on public welfare was $100.5 Billion to serve a population of 227.2 million.  In thirty short years, public assistance programs have skyrocketed with no end in sight.  I think it is clear to see that government alone is not the answer.

What is the answer?  Charitable giving, including giving through religious channels is part of the solution, but as I've already explained, that is not enough.  I believe the government, our tax dollars, provides a safety net for the poor that is necessary too, but support that comes solely from the government can never be enough.
 
What else is needed then?  I believe that an honest reading of the verses in Proverbs, coupled with our on ethical and moral principles, regardless of religious persuasion, shows us that we need to just open our eyes and look around us.  There are plenty of people who need our love, financial help and moral support beyond the reach of established charities and the government.  It may be a family member that needs help.  You have it to give.  Give it freely.  It may be a friend, a neighbor, a co-worker.  You have it to give.  Give it freely, and may I add?  Expect nothing in return.  Philanthropy is the love we have and express toward our fellow man.  Isn't it time we all become more philanthropic in our dealings with those around us less fortunate?